V. Abstract situation types: ontological aspect 49
V. Abstract situation types: ontological aspect
1.33 Introduction
1.33.1 In order to understand the meaning and use of certain tenses and of
(non)progressive forms, it is necessary to classify templates for describing situa-
tions on the basis of whether or not they represent the situation as having
particular ontological features, such as ‘static’, ‘durative’, etc.
18
The set of
features that are attributed to a situation by the verb phrase representing it are
said to constitute a kind of ‘aspect’, i. e. a particular way of representing a
situation in terms of its internal constituency. This kind of aspect is known as
Aktionsart, lexical aspect or ontological aspect. It is the expression of
inherent characteristics, such as (non)staticness, (non)durativeness, etc., of a
kind of situation as it is linguistically represented by a verb phrase that has not
yet been marked for progressive or nonprogressive aspect. (By ‘inherent’ we
mean that the kind of situation necessarily has the features in question, irre-
spective of the context in which it is used.) The proviso in connection with
(non)progressive aspect is necessary because, as we will see in 1.49, grammati-
cal aspect may sometimes overrule the ontological aspect of the unmarked verb
phrase. Thus, while walking is typically conceived of as dynamic, the sentence
John walks to work is interpreted as referring to a state (more specifically, a
habit, i. e. a type of situation that is characteristic of the referent of the subject
NP over an extended period of time Ϫ see 1.23). This static interpretation is
due to the use of the nonprogressive form of the present tense: the correspond-
ing progressive sentence John is walking to work denotes a dynamic situation.
1.33.2 Some of the lexical-aspect features of a verb, VP or predicate constitu-
ent are purely a question of representation (e. g. the feature ‘slow movement’
in walk slowly), whereas others are more closely linked to the ontological
status of the situation type in the real world. The latter possibility is illustrated
by the verb drive (when used as a one-word verb phrase), which can only be

mine the possibility of using the verb phrase in the progressive form. The
distinction [( telic] is relevant to the use of temporal adverbials Ϫ compare I
walked a mile {in / *for} one hour with I walked {*in / for} one hour. But
features like [ϩ in liquid] or [ϩ four participants] do not have any linguistic
relevance (at least in English) and are therefore not included in our set of
(grammatically relevant) ontological features. Neither is the feature [( itera-
tive], which is a true ontological feature but will be disregarded because it is
not grammatically relevant, i. e. it does not determine any grammatical rule or
distinction. (An
iterative verb is one which represents a kind of situation as
consisting of a rapid repetition of subsituations of the same kind, such as ham-
mer, twinkle, stutter, rattle, stammer, etc. While draw is a noniterative verb,
doodle is an iterative one.) Note that when we say that the feature [( iterative]
is not grammatically relevant, because it does not determine any grammatical
rule or distinction, we are referring to the ontological feature [( iterative], not
to iterative grammatical aspect Ϫ see 1.24 Ϫ nor to the fact that clauses may
get an iterative reading as a result of grammatical combinations, such as the
combination of punctual Aktionsart with progressive aspect, as in John was
kicking the ball.
1.33.4 In the next sections we will discuss the various ontological features
that determine lexical aspect in English. In doing so we will point out that
some of the features can be applied not only to the verb, VP or predicate, but
also to clauses and to situations represented by clauses.
V. Abstract situation types: ontological aspect 51
1.34 Ontological feature 1: ‘static’ versus ‘dynamic’
1.34.1 A static situation (or state) is a situation which is conceived of (and
represented) as existing (rather than as being done, taking place or developing)
and as being unchanging and hence homogeneous throughout its duration. A
static kind of situation is not agentive (i. e. when there is actualization, it is
not performed or instigated by an agent Ϫ see section 1.35 below) and is not

1.34.3 Certain verbs can only be used to refer to a state. We refer to them as
static situation verbs or state verbs. (Some people speak of verbs of
state.) Examples of static situation verbs are: seem, contain, know, consist of.
The verb be can be used both in a static and in a dynamic way, depending on
52 1. Introduction
whether the situation which it helps to describe is agentive or not (see section
1.35 for a definition of ‘agentive’). For example, be tall refers to a state, while
be careful can refer either to a state, as in You can rely on him, he’s careful,
or to an action (which is by definition agentive and therefore nonstatic), as in
I’m being careful this time, which is interpreted something like ‘This time I’m
taking the necessary precautions’. In this agentive meaning, be careful is a
dynamic verb phrase.
1.34.4 One special type of state is the type that we refer to as ‘habitual’. A
habit is a situation that typically involves repetition and is characteristic of
the referent of the subject for an extended period of time. Since a characteristic
is by definition a state, habits belong to the ontological class of static situations.
We call a habit
temporary if the period during which the characteristic exists
is explicitly represented as restricted (as in He has not played well recently);
otherwise we speak of a
permanent habit, even when there are pragmatic
restrictions on the duration of the habit, as when we are ascribing the habit to
a particular person. (Thus, John walks to work expresses a permanent habit,
even though this habit is pragmatically restricted to that part of John’s lifetime
during which he works. By contrast, John is walking to work these days repre-
sents the habit as temporary.)
John is difficult to speak to these days. (temporary habit)
We are eating in the kitchen [while the living room is being redecorated]. (tempo-
rary habit)
William is afraid of the dark. (permanent habit)

no dynamic subsituations involved.
1.35 Ontological feature 2: ‘agentive’ versus ‘nonage ntive’
1.35.1 A situation is agentive if any actualization of it is caused (i. e. per-
formed or instigated) by an agent. The
agent is the entity that is responsible
for the actualization of the situation, in the sense that it actually does some-
thing that induces the situation to actualize. The following examples refer to
instances of actualization of an agentive situation:
John hit Bill on the nose.
She’s walking home now.
An agent is typically animate, especially human. However, as speakers, we also
routinely attribute agentivity to nonhuman animate beings and sometimes even
to inanimate entities:
Our dog bit the postman and the Post Office is suing us.
The computer virus destroyed all our files and sent copies of itself to everyone on
our mailing list.
1.35.2 As already noted, a state is by definition nonagentive. Thus, Bill is an
old man does not imply that Bill does something in order to achieve the effect
of being an old man. Events (i. e. dynamic situations that simply happen with-
out implying a performer or instigator) and processes (i. e. dynamic situations
that are developments) are also nonagentive:
A stone came loose from the slope and fell down. (events)
The accident happened around midnight. (event)
This species of fungus is in danger of dying out. (process)
The door was opening slowly. (process)
54 1. Introduction
By contrast, actions are by definition agentive:
Bill was opening the door.
Unwittingly, Jimmy {killed / was killing} the goose that laid the golden eggs.
1.35.3 Linguists often include the feature ‘intentionality’ Ϫ i. e. the idea

ing nature of his utterances (which are determined by his character rather than
by his volition).
On the other hand, it is clear that the default case is for an action to be
both agentive and intentional. Intentionality is a strong implicature of agenti-
vity: failing an indication to the contrary, agentive situations will be taken to
be deliberate. It is therefore unnecessary to add [( intentional] as a separate
feature to the list of relevant ontological features that help to distinguish be-
tween the major situation types. In general, [ϩ intentional] can be taken to
follow from [ϩ agentive], unless there is an indication to the contrary.
V. Abstract situation types: ontological aspect 55
1.36 Ontological feature 3: ‘homogeneous’ versus
‘heterogeneous’
1.36.1 A durative situation is conceived of as homogeneous if it is conceived
of as consisting of parts which are all of the same kind as the situation as a
whole. Otherwise it is
nonhomogeneous (or heterogeneous). The distinc-
tion is not applicable to punctual situations.
1.36.2 There are two types of
homogeneous situations. Firstly, any static
situation is homogeneous because a state by definition remains unchanged
throughout its duration. Secondly, a dynamic situation is homogeneous if it is
conceptualized as consisting of a number of stages (‘slices’) which are subsitu-
ations of the same kind as the situation as a whole. In this case it is possible
that a concrete actualization of the situation type involves one or more inter-
missions or accidental gaps, but this does not alter our fundamental way of
conceptualizing the situation as a homogeneous situation. Thus the following
examples refer to the actualization of a homogeneous situation:
Bill is a reliable worker. (static, hence homogeneous)
John roamed the streets last night. (dynamic, homogeneous)
Helen practised her stilt-walking in the wood this morning. (dynamic, homogeneous)